paying full price for jaguar sucks - Page 4

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>Akac, let's tackle your points in order...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Indeed, let's.

[quote]<strong>
&gt; 10.2 is hardly a minor upgrade. Its hardly only 10-20% changes from 10.1.5.

You are right. A lot of packages are being _upgraded_, but that is normal in the Unix packaging system. However, there's very few _new_ apps. </strong><hr></blockquote>

iCal
Address Book 2.0 (and before you say 'that's just an upgrade', it's a complete rewrite as an LDAP front end - only the name is the same)
Bluetooth support
iSync (SyncML? Sweet.)

What, these apps aren't enough? Too trivial? Think like a Unix CLI user... each one does a specific job, and does it well, and is tightly integratable through Services, AppleScript, and such. Seems good so far.

Add in the development frameworks:

Rendevous (zeroconf)
CUPS
Bluetooth
gcc3.1
Ink
Quartz Extreeeeeeeeeme (who the &&*($@ came up with that name, anyway?)
...and a few others I'm not at liberty to discuss

So this isn't worth it for the apps these will spawn off? Hmmm.

[quote]<strong>For example, the kernel is being upgraded. Big deal, it's probably the same major version - it's an upgrade, not a brand new kernel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okey-dokey, we'll replace your Linux kernel with the X.0.0 version, and see if you notice. What? You do? But it's *just* an upgrade... big deal, right?

Not to mention that it's all recompiled with gcc3.1 for some serious speed boosts, that the threading system has been seriously revamped, that it's been brought much more tightly in line with FreeBSD 4.4 for the enduser... naw, you're right. 'Big deal.'

[quote]<strong>&gt; New BSD system. OK, that's about 200MB of your 600MB OS X install. Major changes there in the kernel, etc...

It's an _upgrade_, not a completely new system. Perhaps you are upgrading from 9.2 and it is a new system for you. By the way, I don't feel like I should be paying Apple for upgrading the BSD system when they are basically basing it off the FreeBSD system and hence, somebody besides Apple is actually providing the code. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, well then, as a Linux guru, it should be absolutely trivial for you to go grab the code from the FreeBSD project, compile it, and install it, giving you 10.2 for free, right?

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hint: it won't work. Why? Because it *needed development* before it was usable on a Mach kernel PPC system.

[quote]<strong>All Apple is doing is bundling it up and selling it to the masses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not a member of gcc-dev or darwin-dev, I take it? The amount of work that Apple has done to get FreeBSD and gcc3 working *well* on PowerPC architectures is phenomenal. And, before you say it, yes, they *have* submitted the vast majority of the changes back to the open source projects, the clueless whiners on /. not withstanding.

Apple is most certainly *NOT* just 'wrapping up' OSS code and reselling it. The OSS code gets them a leg up, you bet. It gets them incorporating standards the rest of the Unix world uses, and lets them tune it, submit patches, and generally be a pretty damned spectacular OSS player for a publicly traded corporation. For their own customers, they integrate it into a larger system in such a way as to make it *useful*.

[quote]<strong>&gt; New printing system.

CUPS? It's provided free on linux. What makes you think I should pay for it just because Apple decided to start using it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then don't. Use Linux, if you're really concerned about saving every penny you can.

I mean really, what would you be missing? Other than a nicely integrated system. I mean, all the *pieces* are there, so it *must* be equivalent, right?

Or better yet, stick with MacOS X, but go grab CUPS, install it, and use it from all your favorite apps. Er, wait...

[quote]<strong>&gt; New Quartz Compositor.

This, I agree, could be major, and it is certainly a feature worth paying for. Did Apple do any of the work? Doubtful. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Completely untrue.

[quote]<strong>If they have half a brain, they probably got the videocard manufacturers to do the nitty gritty stuff (after all, that's who provide the drives on Windows systems). </strong><hr></blockquote>

m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y

MS drives the bus. The video card vendors have to do what they say, to get included in the OS, or risk having their cards *never* work. (Don't believe me? My friends at nVidia and a couple of game companies would disagree with you.)

Apple is sitting in the rear seat, trying to flag down the vendors for attention.

Now, not only that, but QC sits firmly between the Quartz layer, and OpenGL... which sits above the card drivers. Which part again did you want the card vendors to write? They're detached from the process.

[quote]<strong>Even if the videocard guys didn't provide the software, Apple can certainly look at the XFree86 code for guidance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, they can't. You're trying to tell me that XFree86 converts all rendered fields into alpha-blended textures and hands them off to OpenGL for post-processing? Don't confuse a transparent window with an infrastructure.

[quote]<strong>&gt; New Finder that's 10x faster, supports FTP, windows SMB clients better, more view options, and the list goes on.

You can call this a feature. I'd call it major bug fix as the Finder is close to useless in the current version.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, rather like KDE, Gnome... to be honest, I haven't seen a free UI yet that was worth the bits it was written on.

You find the current Finder useless. Fine. I don't. I find it klunky in some places, and irritating in others, but I still find it more useful than most other UIs out there.

[quote]<strong>Many of the rest of the apps that you list (LDAP, VPN, IPSec, etc) have well-known public domain software for them. All Apple is doing is providing the code now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Incorrect. See above.

[quote]<strong>I get the feeling that a LOT of people in this newsgroup haven't used a Unix (or linux) based system before and they think that Apple is actually inventing this software. At best, Apple is porting it to the PowerPC architecture and most of that work should actually be fairly trivial (and, most of the hard work should have been done in 10.0)</strong><hr></blockquote>

17 years of Unix programming and admin experience (on, hmmm... 7 platforms, 9 if you count two Linux distros), 16 years of Mac experience, finishing up my PhD in Computer Science. Informed enough?

MacOS X, even 10.1, has been hands down the nicest, easiest to use, administer, and fix Unix distro I've ever encountered. It's also been the slickest development environment I've ever used for Unix coding. It's just that simple. That's why it is worth my money - because it saves me time. $129? That's about what... 2 hours of consulting fees? So if upgrading to 10.2 saves me *two lousy hours* over the course of, say, a year (until 10.3), then it pays for itself, yes?

[quote]<strong>Now you may say that Apple wants to keep the OS X name for a while and try to rationalize that 10.2 is completely different that 10.1.5. Let me ask you, though... If the OS was completely different, do you really think that apps written for 10.1.5 would work on 10.2? I'll tell you. They wouldn't. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Read up on bundles, and the framework selection system. Really. (Hint: They would.)

X.Y.Z: Z = bug fix, Y = new features, X = 'completely different'. 10.2 *is* the appropriate number to be used here. Massive upgrading of the underlying infrastructure, new frameworks for developers to play with, new apps that use them. Definitely more than just a bug fix, not a complete revamping of the architecture. It's an X.Y release, and one generally pays for new features in the commercial world.

[quote]<strong>It would be like trying to run 9.2 apps natively within OS X. It just simply wouldn't work. That should be your biggest tip-off that this is an upgrade.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's called backwards compatability. This is one Unix that has it. I'm really sorry Linux doesn't, but this is one of those 'useless' innovations you pay for.

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>Akac, let's tackle your points in order...

Now you may say that Apple wants to keep the OS X name for a while and try to rationalize that 10.2 is completely different that 10.1.5. Let me ask you, though... If the OS was completely different, do you really think that apps written for 10.1.5 would work on 10.2? I'll tell you. They wouldn't. It would be like trying to run 9.2 apps natively within OS X. It just simply wouldn't work. That should be your biggest tip-off that this is an upgrade.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have to object to that statement. You obviously aren't very familiar with the underpinnings of Mac OS X. Recently I found an old copy of a calculator program from the 1997 Rhapsody Preview Release. I took the sample code, put it into Project Builder and Interface Builder in Mac OS X, and besides having to resize the buttons (Aqua buttons are so much bigger than the OS 8-style buttons the original app used!) it worked perfectly. This is five-year old (maybe older) software that works without *any* code modification. Beautiful thing that Yellow Box ! And by the way, this app was also ready to be compiled for Intel, but lacking an Intel version of Mac OS X, I couldn't compile it <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Anyway my point is: Yes, Virginia, despite *vast differences in operating systems, apps can run unmodified.

The API's don't necessarily have to change, just because the world around it does.

<a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html</a>

Sorry, not funny...

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Ebby ]</p>

[quote]ical<hr></blockquote>

It's a free download. I.e, I can get it without upgrading.

[quote]Address Book 2.0 (and before you say 'that's just an upgrade', it's a complete rewrite as an LDAP front end - only the name is the same)<hr></blockquote>

It's a free download. I should also note that M$ provides Outlook Express for free and these products seem to want to perform a similar role. Apple _has_ to provide them, else people would be somewhat angry when they get their computer and it has no software on it.

[quote]Bluetooth support<hr></blockquote>

I agree that this is worth some amount of money.

[quote]iSync (SyncML? Sweet.)<hr></blockquote>

Seems to be worth a marginal amount of money. Probably a cute front end around rsync and a simple database.

[quote]What, these apps aren't enough? Too trivial?<hr></blockquote>

You hit it on the nose. I don't think they are enough _and_ they are trivial. Furthermore, Apple has to provide these products to entice people to buy the (overpriced?) hardware.

[quote]Rendevous (zeroconf)<hr></blockquote>

I'll have to see the implementation of it, but it should at least make up for Apple's crappy support of any networked file system that isn't appletalk. I can't believe how incredibly difficult it is to hook up to Samba servers or NFS using OS X.

[quote]CUPS<hr></blockquote>

This should have been available in OS X. Either way, Apple didn't write the software. I will also note that you can download it yourself and install it for free, so I can't quite figure out why you think it's so great that you can pay Apple to give you a free product.

[quote]Bluetooth<hr></blockquote>

Hey, if you need to mention it again, then great. I agree that this is somewhat useful.

[quote]gcc3.1<hr></blockquote>

I agree that Apple had to do some work to get gcc working for the Power PC platform. However, this work was likely done well before OS X 10.0 came out. And, I still contend that the bulk of the work was done via Open Source / Public Domain.

[quote]Ink<hr></blockquote>

It probably wouldn't even be mentioned if it wasn't for M$ pushing the tablet PC. Gee, do you think if M$ wasn't around that Apple would like to mention the Newton again?

[quote]Quartz Extreeeeeeeeeme (who the &&*($@ came up with that name, anyway?)<hr></blockquote>

This should be useful.

[quote]
...and a few others I'm not at liberty to discuss
<hr></blockquote>

Well, you hit the ones that Apple lists on its website, so I guess Apple can't discuss them either. Interesting marketing plan... Buy the product, it has 150+ new features, but we won't tell you what they are!

[quote]Okey-dokey, we'll replace your Linux kernel with the X.0.0 version, and see if you notice. What? You do? But it's *just* an upgrade... big deal, right?<hr></blockquote>

Of course we would notice. However, Apple is still staying on the same major version of FreeBSD, aren't they? I've upgraded minor versions of the kernel lots of times and have rarely noticed (except for bug fixes). I've also upgraded the major version of the kernel and not noticed too much difference (iptables was a bit new for me, but it was similar to ipchains)

[quote]Oh, well then, as a Linux guru, it should be absolutely trivial for you to go grab the code from the FreeBSD project, compile it, and install it, giving you 10.2 for free, right?

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hint: it won't work. Why? Because it *needed development* before it was usable on a Mach kernel PPC system.
<hr></blockquote>

For one, I wouldn't install FreeBSD, I would install Linux. Even then, I probably would prefer the Mac OS X system, but here's why: Microsoft Office. I was perfectly happy doing development work on Linux but it lacks a good office suite, and I need that. That's why I looked around for other solutions and Mac OS X fit the bill.

[quote]Apple is most certainly *NOT* just 'wrapping up' OSS code and reselling it. The OSS code gets them a leg up, you bet. It gets them incorporating standards the rest of the Unix world uses, and lets them tune it, submit patches, and generally be a pretty damned spectacular OSS player for a publicly traded corporation. For their own customers, they integrate it into a larger system in such a way as to make it *useful*.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I realize Apple built their own windowing system on top of FreeBSD, and I also recognize that it's quite good. Is it much better than XFree86? There's certainly features missing in Aqua that I love in X-windows, and Aqua seems sluggish compared to X-windows. However, Aqua does look a bit prettier (although I could probably find some way in gnome or KDE to emulate a lot of the prettyness of Aqua)

The missing features? Virtual desktops, a better tool bar (the dock is close, but not quite there), the ability to have focus follow the mouse cursor. I'm sure there's more that others can add.

Apple also built some cute networking features IF you are also hooked up to other Apple equipment. They took a bet that everybody would be using Apples and they lost. Now, it's a huge pain in the neck to connect to any other brand of equipment. You seem to think that we should pay for them to fix their mistakes (Rendezvous) I think it's ridiculous when there are open source tools out there that do this for free.

[quote]Ah, rather like KDE, Gnome... to be honest, I haven't seen a free UI yet that was worth the bits it was written on.<hr></blockquote>

Not quite sure what you don't like about them. At least they don't hang for 10-20 seconds while I try to open up a new window. Aqua loves to hang on me while I try to open up new browser windows. (I typically leave about 20-30 windows open at any time)

[quote]You find the current Finder useless. Fine. I don't. I find it klunky in some places, and irritating in others, but I still find it more useful than most other UIs out there.<hr></blockquote>

It's not nearly as useful as the "locate" command is on a Unix box. The Finder is useless because it's a hell of a lot easier for me to just remember where my files are than it is to use the Finder.

[quote](My quote here Many of the rest of the apps that you list (LDAP, VPN, IPSec, etc) have well-known public domain software for them. All Apple is doing is providing the code now

Your quote: Incorrect. See above<hr></blockquote>

Ok, Apple decided not to use the open source tools available and instead decided to write it themselves so that they can encounter the same bugs that other people have found and already fixed. This basically guarantees that the first version of 10.2 is going to have a bunch of bugs. Of course, this seems pretty typical for any corporation, so I shouldn't be too surprised that Apple likes to do this also.

[quote]17 years of Unix programming and admin experience (on, hmmm... 7 platforms, 9 if you count two Linux distros), 16 years of Mac experience, finishing up my PhD in Computer Science. Informed enough?<hr></blockquote>

It sounds like we have somewhat similar experience, except for the Mac part. It's obvious that you have more Mac experience than I do.

[quote]MacOS X, even 10.1, has been hands down the nicest, easiest to use, administer, and fix Unix distro I've ever encountered.<hr></blockquote>

Hmm, maybe I just can't find the tools then. Let's say I want to automount my home directories from my fileserver and also get the list of users from my NIS domain. How do I do this under Mac OSX? Furthermore, I want to print to a networked Epson printer. How do I do this under Mac OS X? These are absolutely trivial things to do under other Unix distros, so maybe I'm just missing the location of the Apple equivalent tools.

[quote]It's also been the slickest development environment I've ever used for Unix coding. It's just that simple. That's why it is worth my money - because it saves me time. $129? That's about what... 2 hours of consulting fees? So if upgrading to 10.2 saves me *two lousy hours* over the course of, say, a year (until 10.3), then it pays for itself, yes?<hr></blockquote>

I've spent about 10 hours trying to get Samba working the way I would like on the Mac, so I guess Apple owes me money now, hmm?


[quote]X.Y.Z: Z = bug fix, Y = new features, X = 'completely different'. 10.2 *is* the appropriate number to be used here. Massive upgrading of the underlying infrastructure, new frameworks for developers to play with, new apps that use them. Definitely more than just a bug fix, not a complete revamping of the architecture. It's an X.Y release, and one generally pays for new features in the commercial world. <hr></blockquote>

Argh!!! You just proved my friggen point! I've never said I want this stuff for free. Of course, I know that Apple has done some work and should be compensated for it. However, as you said, it's _not_ a complete revamping of the architecture, it's an UPGRADE. I'm just pissed off because I'm paying as if it's a complete revamping, but I'm only getting an UPGRADE.

Those who are going from OS 9 to OS X should be paying as if it's a complete revamping, because it is. Those who are going from 10.1.5 should be paying for the upgraded features, not for the whole thing.

[quote]It's called backwards compatability. This is one Unix that has it. I'm really sorry Linux doesn't, but this is one of those 'useless' innovations you pay for.<hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with Linux, because I haven't had any of the difficulties that you have obviously experienced. As I said, if there was a Microsoft Office suite for Linux, I probably would have never switched to the Mac, and I suspect that there are a lot of Linux developers who have followed the same path that I did. It's not going to be pleasant for Apple alienating their new customer base.

[quote]Originally posted by eddie:
<strong>

I have to object to that statement. You obviously aren't very familiar with the underpinnings of Mac OS X. Recently I found an old copy of a calculator program from the 1997 Rhapsody Preview Release. I took the sample code, put it into Project Builder and Interface Builder in Mac OS X, and besides having to resize the buttons (Aqua buttons are so much bigger than the OS 8-style buttons the original app used!) it worked perfectly. This is five-year old (maybe older) software that works without *any* code modification. Beautiful thing that Yellow Box ! And by the way, this app was also ready to be compiled for Intel, but lacking an Intel version of Mac OS X, I couldn't compile it <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Anyway my point is: Yes, Virginia, despite *vast differences in operating systems, apps can run unmodified.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, my bad. Change the word "written" to the word "compiled". Yes, I know it's pretty common to have software written for one OS to run on another OS without difficulties.

For instance, I have programs from my college days that ran on Sun workstations using X11 and they ran perfectly fine on my linux box with only a recompile.

However, I would be a bit more surprised if a binary that runs natively in OS 8 could run natively on OS X.

Pre-Ordered my Jaguar CD Yesterday: $129

No regrets whatsoever.

For those of you complaining that the life-cycle was way too short... I don't know what to say to you. It's a reality in this type of industry. As "Steve" said... the introduction of OSX allowes them to implement changes and advances MUCH faster than they EVER could before... so you will see MAJOR advances and improvements in the OS in a shorter period of time... it doesn't mean the OS is any less deserving of the price... whether it's been 2-years or 6-Months.

Jaguar is what it is. In my opinion... it is EASILLY $130 better than OSX 10.1 and worth every penny to upgrade. If people bought 10.1 6-Months ago... the got 6-Months use out of it and Jag is a worthwhile update.

I dunno... I don't consider myself a zealot... but then again... it's hard for me to be objective if I am. I can't convince YOU to be happy about it... but personally... I am not upset with the pricing. A lot of work went into Jag... a LOT of improvements and features have been rolled-in... MANY things have been tweaked, added, accellerated and refined. All of that costs Apple $$$ to pay their developers and hardware designers (I'm sure Jag is gonna fly on the "new" machines.

And no... I have no problem with Apple pushing the performance curve of the OS closer to the newer lines of hardware... why SHOULDN'T they...? If you wanna keep using your G3... then keep running OS9 which was the OS when that machine came-out. Stop trying to make the OS so backwards compatable that it slows forward progression.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Who knows... maybe I'm wrong... actually, no... I'm NOT wrong, because it's my opinion, and there is no wrong opinion. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Due to UBB choking on this post for unknown reasons, I have to chop it up into pieces. (I guess that's a sign this has gone on too long. )

[quote]-----------------
ical
-----------------

It's a free download. I.e, I can get it without upgrading.<hr></blockquote>

Requires new frameworks in 10.2. So no, you can't get it without upgrading.

[quote]-----------------
Address Book 2.0 (and before you say 'that's just an upgrade', it's a complete rewrite as an LDAP front end - only the name is the same)
-----------------

It's a free download. I should also note that M$ provides Outlook Express for free and these products seem to want to perform a similar role. Apple _has_ to provide them, else people would be somewhat angry when they get their computer and it has no software on it.<hr></blockquote>

And again, it requires 10.2 for the new frameworks.

[quote]
-----------------
Bluetooth support
-----------------

I agree that this is worth some amount of money.
<hr></blockquote>

How much, in your opinion? Honestly.

[quote]
-----------------
iSync (SyncML? Sweet.)
-----------------

Seems to be worth a marginal amount of money. Probably a cute front end around rsync and a simple database.<hr></blockquote>

Er, while it may be possible to do that, and in fact they may have done it that way, don't you think it's a lot more probable that they wrote a SyncML parsing system over their XML frameworks? If they were using rsync, what would be the use of SyncML again?

[quote] -----------------
What, these apps aren't enough? Too trivial?
-----------------

You hit it on the nose. I don't think they are enough _and_ they are trivial. Furthermore, Apple has to provide these products to entice people to buy the (overpriced?) hardware.<hr></blockquote>

So... by that reasoning, every tool in a Unix distro is trivial. That's rather the philosophy, no? Make it small, make it efficient at *one* task, and make it work well with other specialized tools. This is the Unix CLI philosophy brought into the GUI age, and it's about time. Unless, of course, you *like* bloatware...

[quote] -----------------
Rendevous (zeroconf)
-----------------

I'll have to see the implementation of it, but it should at least make up for Apple's crappy support of any networked file system that isn't appletalk. I can't believe how incredibly difficult it is to hook up to Samba servers or NFS using OS X.<hr></blockquote>

See us when 10.2 comes out. Really.

And zeroconf isn't just something Apple plucked from the OSS arena and decided to use... the founders of zeroconf are, and have been since before its inception, Apple employees. This has been a long time coming. This was essentially an Apple backed project from the get go. OSS, no less.

[quote] -----------------
CUPS
-----------------

This should have been available in OS X. Either way, Apple didn't write the software. I will also note that you can download it yourself and install it for free, so I can't quite figure out why you think it's so great that you can pay Apple to give you a free product.<hr></blockquote>

Because no apps can/will use it, that's why. I thought that was obvious. Sorry. Apple incorporates CUPS behind the scenes for older apps to use transparently, and provides a new, richer API for apps that wish to do more. This is a large step from just grabbing the source, compiling the libraries, and having them sit there on your drive not being used.

[quote] -----------------
Bluetooth
-----------------

Hey, if you need to mention it again, then great. I agree that this is somewhat useful.<hr></blockquote>

What, I can't have a typo?

[quote] -----------------
gcc3.1
-----------------

I agree that Apple had to do some work to get gcc working for the Power PC platform. However, this work was likely done well before OS X 10.0 came out. And, I still contend that the bulk of the work was done via Open Source / Public Domain.<hr></blockquote>

Bulk of *what* work... the whole project, or the PPC work? The former, sure... exactly as much as was done for Linux. Less, actually, since the PPC section was so poor.

The PPC work? Almost exclusively Apple, I hate to tell you. Red Hat had a PPC push at one point, but it seems to have fizzled.

And, I'd point you to the gcc-dev archives for an indication of what work was done pre/post 10.0. You might be shocked. A lot.

10.0 -&gt; 10.1.5 have all used gcc2.95 variants, due to some sketchy legacy code left over from the *NeXT* days. All compiler work up until 10.1 was just getting gcc2.95 to produce decent code, and add AltiVec support, even though it was a dead branch... they had to have something, and hoisting up to gcc3 wasn't something they could do in that timeframe. (Trust me, the 2.95 Apple code was *crufty* with a capital cruft. The mass cleanup alone is enough to give me twitches. The NeXT era codebase was never intended to be rolled back into the public tree, so they just went hogwild with edits, most of which were never properly tracked. The current team had a *BEAR* of a job in just finding out what the heck all that changed code did, and how to re-integrate it with the gcc3.1 codebase.)

10.2 is the first version of the OS that has been built, ground up, with gcc3.1, and the work it has taken to get gcc3.1 producing good PPC code has been phenomenal... and it's all happened since 10.1. It's a big chunk of work. Stan & Co deserve massive mucho credit and kudos for this.

Oh, and it's (nearly) all been rolled back to FSF for inclusion in the main gcc distro. See? They're nice OSS players. Shocking, ain't it?

Remember, gcc3 has nothing to do with the gcc2 code. Nada. It's a complete rewrite.

[quote] -----------------
Ink
-----------------

It probably wouldn't even be mentioned if it wasn't for M$ pushing the tablet PC. Gee, do you think if M$ wasn't around that Apple would like to mention the Newton again?<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I believe a lot of people within Apple would. Ink is a great technology, and while the applications right now are *really* limited, it hints at some nicer items down the road. (Think Sony/Ericsson licensing. )

[quote] -----------------
Quartz Extreeeeeeeeeme (who the &&*($@ came up with that name, anyway?)
-----------------

This should be useful.<hr></blockquote>

This is funny, because this is probably one of the pieces I'm the *least* excited about in the short term. (Probably because I don't have any hardware that'll take advantage of it. ) Long term, oh heck yeah... some of the possibilities are droolilicious.

[quote] -----------------
...and a few others I'm not at liberty to discuss
-----------------

Well, you hit the ones that Apple lists on its website, so I guess Apple can't discuss them either. Interesting marketing plan... Buy the product, it has 150+ new features, but we won't tell you what they are!<hr></blockquote>

Hint: Wait for the release. Sheesh. Never hear of an NDA?

[quote] -----------------
Okey-dokey, we'll replace your Linux kernel with the X.0.0 version, and see if you notice. What? You do? But it's *just* an upgrade... big deal, right?
-----------------

Of course we would notice. However, Apple is still staying on the same major version of FreeBSD, aren't they? I've upgraded minor versions of the kernel lots of times and have rarely noticed (except for bug fixes). I've also upgraded the major version of the kernel and not noticed too much difference (iptables was a bit new for me, but it was similar to ipchains)
<hr></blockquote>

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what version of FreeBSD they're currently synced with in 10.1... I *think* it's 4.0. I could be wrong, and I can't seem to freakin' find it on the Apple dev site. Bleah.

But, you have to realize that MacOS X's core, from the GUI level, is much much more than just the BSD layer. It's those in-between bits that have undergone a substantial revamping, as well as updating the core. And the dev tools. And the user tools. And, and, and...

[quote] -----------------
Oh, well then, as a Linux guru, it should be absolutely trivial for you to go grab the code from the FreeBSD project, compile it, and install it, giving you 10.2 for free, right?

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hint: it won't work. Why? Because it *needed development* before it was usable on a Mach kernel PPC system.
-----------------

For one, I wouldn't install FreeBSD, I would install Linux. Even then, I probably would prefer the Mac OS X system, but here's why: Microsoft Office. I was perfectly happy doing development work on Linux but it lacks a good office suite, and I need that. That's why I looked around for other solutions and Mac OS X fit the bill.<hr></blockquote>

Er... you'd have to install FreeBSD, since that's what MacOS X is based on. My point, which apparently was missed tremendously, was that MacOS X != Darwin != FreeBSD. You can't just go out and grab the OSS code, compile it all together into one big setup, and claim that it's MacOS X, which is what you apparently think Apple has done, for the most part.

What they've done is what no one else seems to be able to do... integrate all the various bits of good OSS code into a useful whole, by adding in the cohesive glue and, dare I say it, singular vision that it required. If that's trivial, or not worth paying for, then why hasn't it occurred spontaneously in the OSS arena before now?

As for the latter part, I agree... MacOS X is the only OS I know of for techie geeks *and* non-techies *and* PHBs. I can use it to develop my dissertation code, my Mom can use it to run Word, my brother can use it to host his company's website (that he produced). And in each case, it's a best of breed solution. (Well, there's Word, but what the hell.)

[quote] -----------------
Apple is most certainly *NOT* just 'wrapping up' OSS code and reselling it. The OSS code gets them a leg up, you bet. It gets them incorporating standards the rest of the Unix world uses, and lets them tune it, submit patches, and generally be a pretty damned spectacular OSS player for a publicly traded corporation. For their own customers, they integrate it into a larger system in such a way as to make it *useful*.
-----------------

Yes, I realize Apple built their own windowing system on top of FreeBSD, and I also recognize that it's quite good. Is it much better than XFree86? There's certainly features missing in Aqua that I love in X-windows, and Aqua seems sluggish compared to X-windows. However, Aqua does look a bit prettier (although I could probably find some way in gnome or KDE to emulate a lot of the prettyness of Aqua)<hr></blockquote>

So... other than the windowing system, you see *nothing* else that Apple has added to the OSS code to make MacOS X? Oy.

[quote]The missing features? Virtual desktops, a better tool bar (the dock is close, but not quite there), the ability to have focus follow the mouse cursor. I'm sure there's more that others can add.<hr></blockquote>

Virtual desktops are something I'd love as well, (Space is a 3rd party hack for this - klunky, but it works for a per-app basis) and my main beef with the Dock is that it's missing spring-loaded/pop-up functionality. I'm keeping my fingers crossed now that it's in the Finder.

Focus follow mouse? Urk. Never was a fan of that, but I do see that some people prefer it. An option might be nice, but it'd be a fundamental shift for the UI, and I expect you'll have to seek a third party solution for this.

[quote]Apple also built some cute networking features IF you are also hooked up to other Apple equipment. They took a bet that everybody would be using Apples and they lost.<hr></blockquote>

You mean AppleTalk? That was the last Apple only protocol they used, and that's been pretty well deprecated the last four years or so, with Rendevous taking its place (thank god).

Instead, we have NFS, SMB, WebDAV, zeroconf... did I miss anything? (AFS, yeah, but arla.org covers that nicely. )

[quote] Now, it's a huge pain in the neck to connect to any other brand of equipment. You seem to think that we should pay for them to fix their mistakes (Rendezvous) I think it's ridiculous when there are open source tools out there that do this for free.<hr></blockquote>

Again, it's not the underlying library you're paying for, it's the integration with the rest of the system. The whole *IS* greater than the sum of the parts.

[quote] -----------------
Ah, rather like KDE, Gnome... to be honest, I haven't seen a free UI yet that was worth the bits it was written on.
-----------------

Not quite sure what you don't like about them. At least they don't hang for 10-20 seconds while I try to open up a new window. Aqua loves to hang on me while I try to open up new browser windows. (I typically leave about 20-30 windows open at any time)<hr></blockquote>

The response is generally great - it's the usability that bites. And let's face it, the fastest UI response in the world isn't worth much if you can't just *use* it well. (Of course, the most usable UI in the world isn't worth much if it takes forever, either. QE looks to make this much more efficient, as well as the underlying changes to the virtual memory system. There were a couple of... bugs.)

[quote] -----------------
You find the current Finder useless. Fine. I don't. I find it klunky in some places, and irritating in others, but I still find it more useful than most other UIs out there.
-----------------

It's not nearly as useful as the "locate" command is on a Unix box. The Finder is useless because it's a hell of a lot easier for me to just remember where my files are than it is to use the Finder.<hr></blockquote>

What, you actually use it to *find* files?

Honestly, I use Find as little as possible because Sherlock 2 is just too damned slow. I also use locate in the Terminal for quick searches, or find for more obscure items. Luckily, the file layout is pretty clean and simple, so navigating my way to locations is quick and easy. (Love that column view!)

Hopefully the 10.2 Finder in-place search will make this a little more palatable.

[quote] -----------------
(My quote here Many of the rest of the apps that you list (LDAP, VPN, IPSec, etc) have well-known public domain software for them. All Apple is doing is providing the code now

Your quote: Incorrect. See above
-----------------

Ok, Apple decided not to use the open source tools available and instead decided to write it themselves so that they can encounter the same bugs that other people have found and already fixed. This basically guarantees that the first version of 10.2 is going to have a bunch of bugs. Of course, this seems pretty typical for any corporation, so I shouldn't be too surprised that Apple likes to do this also.<hr></blockquote>

No, again, you're missing the point.

They take the well developed code that others have implemented. (Hence, no revisiting of the old problems.)

They then add to this code to port it to PPC/make it work efficiently with MacOS X frameworks, etc.

They then (in most, but not all cases - sometimes IP law steps in, unfortunately, although these cases are becoming more rare) return these changes back to the project so they can be included in the main source tree. This is being a good OSS player. *SHOCK*! Really. I swear. Ask the FreeBSD, gcc, zeroconf, etc folks. Don't assume that because they have 'Inc.' after their name, that they're complete bastards. That's just ingenuous, and showing a bit of ignorance.

They then integrate this layer into the upper frameworks for apps to use. *THIS* is the important part for justifying the price, IMHO.

[quote] -----------------
17 years of Unix programming and admin experience (on, hmmm... 7 platforms, 9 if you count two Linux distros), 16 years of Mac experience, finishing up my PhD in Computer Science. Informed enough?
-----------------

It sounds like we have somewhat similar experience, except for the Mac part. It's obvious that you have more Mac experience than I do.<hr></blockquote>

Well, thanks for the nod.

[quote] -----------------
MacOS X, even 10.1, has been hands down the nicest, easiest to use, administer, and fix Unix distro I've ever encountered.
-----------------

Hmm, maybe I just can't find the tools then. Let's say I want to automount my home directories from my fileserver and also get the list of users from my NIS domain. How do I do this under Mac OSX? <hr></blockquote>

Use NetInfo for the NIS integration, it's built into the NetInfo Manager and Directory Setup. (It's an obtuse pain to set up, I'll admit... NI's documentation is... lacking. They're moving to LDAP in any case, so hopefully this hole will be plugged with docs on a more widely accepted system anyway.)

Is the fileserver running MacOS X? If so, just use AppleTalk/IP (it's the default), and include it in the NetInfo database as a mount point. Or, if you prefer NFS, you can do that as well. Again, it's the NI documentation that's lacking, not the functionality. (Except for a nasty little bug in the NFS automounting if it's hosted from a Linux box, which is of course exactly what you just *had* to ask about... ) Is the fileserver running AFS? arla.org for info there.

Personally, I'm almost glad they're tossing NetInfo to the winds... it was a slick system when it was produced, and while it still has some advantages over LDAP, ubiquitous isn't one of them, and LDAP does have some nice features.


[quote]Furthermore, I want to print to a networked Epson printer. How do I do this under Mac OS X? These are absolutely trivial things to do under other Unix distros, so maybe I'm just missing the location of the Apple equivalent tools.<hr></blockquote>

CUPS, my dear boy, CUPS.

See, there *is* a reason to get the upgrade...

Currently USB printer sharing is more or less absent. The best you can do currently is set up a printer daemon to accept network lpr requests, then hand them off to a scriptable GUI PS app for printing. Not optimal... but doable.

[quote] -----------------
It's also been the slickest development environment I've ever used for Unix coding. It's just that simple. That's why it is worth my money - because it saves me time. $129? That's about what... 2 hours of consulting fees? So if upgrading to 10.2 saves me *two lousy hours* over the course of, say, a year (until 10.3), then it pays for itself, yes?
-----------------

I've spent about 10 hours trying to get Samba working the way I would like on the Mac, so I guess Apple owes me money now, hmm? <hr></blockquote>

*laugh* Alright, it goes both ways.

&lt;waves hand&gt; This is not the SMB you are looking for.

[quote] -----------------
X.Y.Z: Z = bug fix, Y = new features, X = 'completely different'. 10.2 *is* the appropriate number to be used here. Massive upgrading of the underlying infrastructure, new frameworks for developers to play with, new apps that use them. Definitely more than just a bug fix, not a complete revamping of the architecture. It's an X.Y release, and one generally pays for new features in the commercial world.
-----------------

Argh!!! You just proved my friggen point! I've never said I want this stuff for free. Of course, I know that Apple has done some work and should be compensated for it. However, as you said, it's _not_ a complete revamping of the architecture, it's an UPGRADE. I'm just pissed off because I'm paying as if it's a complete revamping, but I'm only getting an UPGRADE. <hr></blockquote>

At what point is it no longer an upgrade and worthy of a whole new version? This is an honest question.

This 'upgrade' offers a new kernel, a new BSD layer sync, new development tools (and you have to admit, the gcc2-&gt;gcc3 jump is a might big one - all new codebase), a new optimization layer to the graphics subsystem, new open protocols for networking, a plethora of frameworks for open standards, and useful apps to take advantage of them. Did I miss anything?

[quote]Those who are going from OS 9 to OS X should be paying as if it's a complete revamping, because it is. Those who are going from 10.1.5 should be paying for the upgraded features, not for the whole thing.<hr></blockquote>

Alright, find me a section that hasn't been upgraded significantly, and I'll refund you the money for that portion personally. *Void where prohibited by law, or whereever I choose.

Seriously, come up with a significant chunk of the system, from top to bottom, that hasn't been touched or upgraded in some rather significant way, and I'll be interested, because I'm not sure such a chunk exists.

[quote] -----------------
It's called backwards compatability. This is one Unix that has it. I'm really sorry Linux doesn't, but this is one of those 'useless' innovations you pay for.
-----------------

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with Linux, because I haven't had any of the difficulties that you have obviously experienced. <hr></blockquote>

Actually, that was specifically in response to your stating that apps won't work across any major upgrade, and I was attempting to point out that under NeXT, or MacOS X, they *do*. There's a slick little versioning system built into the library loading that allows this. Dynamic binding of a dynamic language allows some *really* neat tricks that you just can *not* do easily with statically typed languages such as C or C++. These features just haven't made their way to other Unixen for various reasons, but they do exist on MacOS X. Not all the Unixen are equal.

It's not that my experience with Linux was so terribly bad... it wasn't really any worse than any other Unix I've dealt with. It just wasn't up to snuff with MacOS X for the things that really matter to me, like development infrastructure. (Surprise!)

[quote] As I said, if there was a Microsoft Office suite for Linux, I probably would have never switched to the Mac, and I suspect that there are a lot of Linux developers who have followed the same path that I did. It's not going to be pleasant for Apple alienating their new customer base. <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I can see where coming from the Linux world having to pay for things is a bit of a shock. Seriously, I see the $129 as going towards all the time and energy it would take me to go get all the codebases, possibly compile them, and get them interoperating to this degree. Not to mention the actual apps, etc, that it makes possible.

I don't take my time as free. Although I certainly seem to have spent a lot of it on this post... *sigh*

To clarify something:

When Apple next jumps a full version number (i.e., version 10 to version 11), you're talking about a jump along the lines of System 6 to 7, or even OS 9 to OS X. The whole OS 7 (7.5.5 or whatever) upgrade to 8.0 was along the lines what we're seeing now, and the jump from 8.6 to 9 was almost non-existent in terms of features and architecture. This is a more "honest" version numbering scheme and upgrade in some respects.

geez... i can't think of another issue that has polarized the mac community. well, not since .mac.

(laugh it up people, i'm trying to lighten the damned mood)

anyway, BOTH sides in this issue have their merit.

for instance, announcments always cut both ways. sure, there are new goodies available, but that shiny new piece of hardware or software you just bought has just been tarnished ever-so-slightly.

this appears to be a very large upgrade, so maybe some of the blame needs to be placed on the marketing department for calling it something that SOUNDS so insignificant as a 10.1 to 10.2 upgrade, yet ask for a full price purchase, even for pre-existing owners.

not offering ANY upgrade cost to pre-existing 10.1 owners (hell, i'm NOT saying just $20... maybe $89-99 instead of $129?) is just a poor idea on apple's part... if any company needs strong PR in times of baad economy, it's apple.

essentially, i think there's a perfectly feasible compromise here, and those people who say apple's totally right, or apple should be throwing them free from the rooftops, are equally deluded.

either way, i'll be getting it via educational discount through my wife, so it doesn't affect me much in any way.

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>geez... i can't think of another issue that has polarized the mac community. well, not since .mac.

(laugh it up people, i'm trying to lighten the damned mood)</strong><hr></blockquote>

No! Not allowed! How dare you tell us how to feel!



[quote]<strong>

anyway, BOTH sides in this issue have their merit.

for instance, announcments always cut both ways. sure, there are new goodies available, but that shiny new piece of hardware or software you just bought has just been tarnished ever-so-slightly.

this appears to be a very large upgrade, so maybe some of the blame needs to be placed on the marketing department for calling it something that SOUNDS so insignificant as a 10.1 to 10.2 upgrade, yet ask for a full price purchase, even for pre-existing owners.</strong><hr></blockquote>

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

No! Please god no! Let's stick to the rational numbering scheme: X.0 = major update, X.Y = new features, X.Y.Z = bug fix. Expect to always pay something for X.Y releases, nothing for X.Y.Z, and always pay full price for X.0.

It's the definition of 'something' that's causing the problem here, methinks.

[quote]<strong>
not offering ANY upgrade cost to pre-existing 10.1 owners (hell, i'm NOT saying just $20... maybe $89-99 instead of $129?) is just a poor idea on apple's part... if any company needs strong PR in times of baad economy, it's apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I agree with you. (And you too, Brian, on this point.) There should be some sort of reduced price for *some* segment of the market. Perhaps those that bought 10.1 or 10.0 (or a new machine) in the past three months. Perhaps those that bought just 10.1. I dunno. I *don't* think it should be every 10.x owner though... it's been 16 months since the last full priced release, with 10.0. It'll be 17 with 10.2's release. I don't think that $150 ($130 + $20 for 10.1) every 17-18 months is excessive. In just three months though, yeah, that'd suck.
[quote]<strong>
essentially, i think there's a perfectly feasible compromise here, and those people who say apple's totally right, or apple should be throwing them free from the rooftops, are equally deluded.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are no deluded people here, move along citizen.

[quote]<strong>
either way, i'll be getting it via educational discount through my wife, so it doesn't affect me much in any way.
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

A-HA! We've found the reason for your rational behaviour. I'm afraid you're going to have to leave that at the door buddy, we don't serve your kind here.

I have spoken with my wallet. My copy of Jag-ou-ar has been on order from the Apple Store for Education since July 17. I wanted to get the full install CDs for this milestone release anyway.

Escher

[quote]Requires new frameworks in 10.2. So no, you can't get it without upgrading. <hr></blockquote>

Yes, I did forget to mention that caveat. It's an interesting strategy on Apple's part. Provide some nice software only if you pony up $130 for the new OS. It seems to me that if they like to screw their customer base, they can time each release of some interesting free software with a pricey OS upgrade.

[quote] At what point is it no longer an upgrade and worthy of a whole new version? This is an honest question. <hr></blockquote>

I think this is the crux of the issue. To me, it seems like it takes far more work to take a non-Unix type system and convert it to Unix than it does to upgrade a Unix system.

[quote] Yeah, I can see where coming from the Linux world having to pay for things is a bit of a shock. Seriously, I see the $129 as going towards all the time and energy it would take me to go get all the codebases, possibly compile them, and get them interoperating to this degree. Not to mention the actual apps, etc, that it makes possible.<hr></blockquote>

Paying for something is not what I have a problem with. The lack of tiered pricing is what I have difficulties with. Going from 9.2 to 10.2 is a much bigger change in the OS than going from 10.1.5 (or even 10.0.x) to 10.2. I'm a little angry because it's not priced as if there was a difference.

What price would I consider fair? $99 for users of 10.1.x to go to 10.2. Not much of a discount, but at least it's something.

Finally, one last thing

[quote] So... other than the windowing system, you see *nothing* else that Apple has added to the OSS code to make MacOS X? Oy.<hr></blockquote>

I'll try to phrase it somewhat diplomatically. Perhaps Apple does it so well that I don't even notice it. But so far, coming from the Linux/Unix background, no.

Would you care to give me some examples of what they have added that I couldn't get on other Unix boxes?

In fairness, I'm still relatively new to Macs, so there may be features out there that I'm not using because I'm so accustomed to the X-windows way of doing things. For example, I really miss being able to select text with the left mouse button and paste it with the middle button without having to hit Command-C and Command-V. Maybe there's some cool shortcut on the Mac that I don't know about. (I realize that you probably have better things to do to give me a tutorial on the differences between Macs and other OS's, so if you want to refer me to a book or website, that's cool too)

I don't mind paying for Jaguar, it really is a full update, very robust and full of new features. It's literally among the most significant OS updates Apple has ever offered. The jump from 8.6 to 9.0 certainly wasn't as great, and yet Apple charged for that one.

Jaguar's feature set alone could justify the price, yet it also has mondo optimizations, not just QE but also the speed boost from using GCC 3.1. It's going to be like getting a CPU upgrade for your Mac.

HOWEVER, all is not well in paradise. I have a few problems with the way Apple is going about charging for this update:

1. They need to have an upgrade path for those who recently purchased 10.1. What about those who only 2-4 months ago bought 10.1, or even a new Mac computer? It's not right for them to have to fork over another $130! Not right at all.. I think it would be better to charge them a nominal fee, like $20 for anyone who purchased a mac in the last 4 months, and maybe $40 to anyone who purchased 10.1 in the last few months.

2. Isn't there a difference between those who are buying OS X for the first time, and those who've been using OS X since its inception? I think there is. Seems to me that new OS X buyers should pay the full price, but longtime OS X users should get a deal. How much of a deal? I don't know...maybe $69? $50? Something less than full price. Because if Apple charges too much, then they just promote piracy. I think lots of people out there would pay if they got a deal, but without getting a discount they feel slighted, and thus will have no moral problems with pirating 10.2.

I won't be pirating Jaguar because I don't like to steal software from Apple--they need the money. If it's Micro$oft, then yeah, my CD-Burner is cranked to full speed, but Apple deserves the money. But when Apple does things like this, where they don't offer any discount to those who have migrated to OS X early, ahead of the pack, well that's just not right. But it's not "wrong" either, so I'll pay.


Funny, how there's essentially four kinds of people in this thread:

1. One group is utterly pissed at Apple and no amount of water would douse their flames. They will never pay for Jaguar, Carracho or Hotline is their meal ticket and that's how it's gonna be!

2. The smallest group by far, includes those who are unhappy about the lack of an upgrade price, but still understand that apple needs the money and are going to pay for the upgrade. I fall in this group

3. A fairly large group of those who think it's fine that Apple is charging the full price to everyone, and are willing to pay that price. They are humble about their beliefs, and simply state their intent to purchase Jaguar. They may even give examples of why Jaguar is such a bitchin' OS.

4. The most obnoxious group, and unfortunately a fairly large group: The Whiners. These boners start their posts by whining about the other posters who think it's wrong for Apple not to have an upgrade price. They piss and moan about how Apple isn't a charity, how Apple is a business, and how their programmers need to make a living. They even call other posters communists if they don't want to gleefully pay the full price for Jaguar. "we don't live in a commune! Apple is a business! This is a capitalist society!". This fourth group are the most heinous of all Apple users, they are the AppleZombies. Anything Apple does is righteous and just, and they will defend Apple's actions at all costs. This same group would rally behind Jobs if he declared that Apple will begin charging $99 each for iTunes, iPhoto, and iMovie. "But you got them free for so long...life isn't free, you have to pay for things in life!" Wha wha wha!

Listen, we all know that Apple is not a charity. I don't think anyone here expects Apple to just give them computers for free. It's the principle of the matter: Apple is treating Loyal Mac Users the same as any other user, and people feel that their loyalty is being taken for granted. And in a way, it is.

Would it kill Apple to give a discount to those who purchased 10.0? No, it wouldn't, yet the principle would create even more loyal fans and such goodwill would spread by word of mouth and probably gain customers for Apple. Even giving a small discount would help, because it's not about the money, it's about the principle. Loyal Mac users want to feel like Apple respects their loyalty...and I bet that if Apple had given only a $30 discount to those who purchased 10.0, it would have silenced criticism. OS X, v10.2: $129 for first-time OS X buyers, $99 for the early adopters. It would have made Apple look like the good guy, it would have silenced criticism, it probably would have cut down on piracy and because of this, it may have made Apple even MORE money than charging the full amount for Jaguar to everyone.

I'll be paying for Jaguar, but I can sympathize with those who are upset about not getting a discount, and with those who will pirate Jaguar because they feel like their loyalty to Apple is being taken for granted.

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>
Yes, I did forget to mention that caveat. It's an interesting strategy on Apple's part. Provide some nice software only if you pony up $130 for the new OS. It seems to me that if they like to screw their customer base, they can time each release of some interesting free software with a pricey OS upgrade.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So.... you'd rather they *didn't* provide new features or apps? Seriously, I'm curious as the reasoning behind this one.

If they add new features to the OS, add provide free apps to take advantage of those features and APIs, they're somehow 'screwing over' their customers when they expect to get paid. Hmmm. Would you rather they add the APIs and *not* provide the free apps? Or perhaps just not bother with the new APIs at all, and leave the OS as it is, in perpetuity? Honestly, what is the issue here that you have a problem with?

[quote]<strong>
I think this is the crux of the issue. To me, it seems like it takes far more work to take a non-Unix type system and convert it to Unix than it does to upgrade a Unix system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That seems to be a tautology: "It takes more work to do more work." Uh, yeah.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here - are you saying that because it's 'merely' an upgrade (regardless of the fact that it's a larger upgrade than 8.6-&gt;9.0 was, and strictly due to marketing, folks paid full price without blinking an eye... would you rather they use irrational marketing practices to modify the versioning scheme to justify prices?) it's not worth paying for, or that folks who upgrade from 10.x should get a price break?

[quote]<strong>
Paying for something is not what I have a problem with. The lack of tiered pricing is what I have difficulties with. Going from 9.2 to 10.2 is a much bigger change in the OS than going from 10.1.5 (or even 10.0.x) to 10.2. I'm a little angry because it's not priced as if there was a difference.

What price would I consider fair? $99 for users of 10.1.x to go to 10.2. Not much of a discount, but at least it's something.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Alright, fair enough.

Finally, one last thing

[quote]

I'll try to phrase it somewhat diplomatically. Perhaps Apple does it so well that I don't even notice it. But so far, coming from the Linux/Unix background, no.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>

Wow. I'm honestly speechless.

[quote]<strong>Would you care to give me some examples of what they have added that I couldn't get on other Unix boxes?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Consistency, for one thing. Consistency with how apps work, how they interact, how they print, how they work *together*. I have yet to see that in the OSS world to any real extent. Everyone has their own idea of how to do things (which is good), and ends up doing it differently (which is okay) thereby running into the same problems and reinventing the wheel (which is bad). For all the mantra of code reuse and sharing code, there's still a huge pool of redundant code that is a waste of time for everyone involved, not to mention a maintenance nightmare. This is where the current OSS world falls down - lack of vision.

Apple is, admittedly, cherry picking. They're grabbing the best of the breed for each problem they run into, and providing it for their users as part of an *integrated whole*. Never underestimate the power of such a beast.

Which would you rather have... a car fresh off the showroom floor, ready to roll, or a big box of parts and tools? People buy kit cars because they love putting them together... not because they want to drive them anytime soon. Other people pay big bucks to mechanics to put together a kit car for them, so they can drive a fun car, without the work. Other people go buy a car off the floor to drive today, because they have to get things done, and couldn't care less about the fun quotient or the fun of working on it.

OSS is the box of parts and tools, IMHO. Yeah, you've got all the pieces, but what the hell are you going to do with them? It's gotten better, but it's still a mish-mash.

Windows is the showroom floor model... the Accord. Everyone's got one, they're fairly reliable, but they're a *PAIN* to work on, and you're better off just taking it back to the dealer to get anything done on it.

OS X is the middle ground - all the parts of the kit car, but you've paid someone else to put them together. And people *DO* pay for this service... big time. (I had a great uncle that built and restored classic Corvettes (pre '63). He did about 6 cars a year... and was *very* well off.) It's pre-built, but it's fun, and you *can* pop the hood and tinker in the guts at any time if you wish.

In that respect, yeah, you can go grab CUPS and add it to your 10.1 system. You could go grab a SyncML library and add it as well, or one of any number of items that are in 10.2 or 10.1... but they'll still be just a big jumble of parts.

Add CUPS to 10.1, and see if any GUI app uses it. It won't. The behind the scenes work is what you're paying for.

So yeah, in a sense, Apple really is just that good at it... the best design process is transparent to the user.

[quote]<strong>In fairness, I'm still relatively new to Macs, so there may be features out there that I'm not using because I'm so accustomed to the X-windows way of doing things. For example, I really miss being able to select text with the left mouse button and paste it with the middle button without having to hit Command-C and Command-V. Maybe there's some cool shortcut on the Mac that I don't know about. (I realize that you probably have better things to do to give me a tutorial on the differences between Macs and other OS's, so if you want to refer me to a book or website, that's cool too)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. On that note, I can only say that that's a minor UI feature, when here I thought we were talking about serious topics, like infrastructure and standards. If that's really the level of concern you have with the differences or the similarities, I can't help you much. I'd suggest going to versiontracker.com and looking for UI hacks. :/

And on that note, I'm going to move this thread to General Discussion, since we've now gone off the OS X specific path, and onto general OS philosophy.

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>